SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Thompson v The Queen |
Citation: | [2018] ACTCA 2 |
Hearing Date: | 12 February 2018 |
DecisionDate: | 19 February 2018 |
Before: | Murrell CJ, Mossop and Wigney JJ |
Decision: | Appeal dismissed. |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Severity appeal against sentence – aggravated robbery – robbery committed in company – co-offender – disparity between the sentences imposed on the offenders – parity principle – whether disparity in sentences was justified by differences in the subjective circumstances of the co-offenders – whether disparity in sentences was justified by differences in the objective seriousness of the offending – difference between offenders’ prospects of rehabilitation – difference between age of offenders – acknowledgement of relevant differences when sentencing co-offenders – whether appellant could establish a justifiable sense of grievance |
Legislation Cited: | Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 310, 318 Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) s 172(2)(a) Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) ss 37E(2)(a), 37O(7) |
Cases Cited: | Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462 Hiron v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 10 |
Parties: | Jason Thompson (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr P Edmonds (Appellant) Ms M Jones (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Canberra Criminal Lawyers (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) | |
File Number: | ACTCA 24 of 2017 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: ACTSC Before: Burns J Date of Decision: 29 May 2017 Case Title: R v Thompson Citation: [2017] ACTSC 141 |
THE COURT:
The appeal
On, 29 May 2017, Burns J (the sentencing judge) imposed the following sentences:
(a)Aggravated robbery (robbery in company) contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code): four years and six months’ imprisonment from 11 November 2016 to 10 May 2021 (maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment and a fine).
(b)Possessing an unregistered prohibited firearm contrary to s 177(2)(a) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT): one year and 10 months’ imprisonment from 11 July 2020 to 10 May 2022 (maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine).
(c)Dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318 of the Criminal Code: nine months’ imprisonment from 11 January 2022 – 10 October 2022 (maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment and a fine).
The total sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was five years and 11 months’ imprisonment from 11 November 2016 to 10 October 2022.
The sentencing judge set a nonparole period of four years from 11 November 2016 to 10 November 2020.
The appellant appealed against the severity of the sentence imposed for the aggravated robbery offence. The only ground of appeal was the disparity of the…
Continue reading Thompson v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Thompson v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 2
- Case
- [2018] ACTCA 2
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the disparity between the sentence imposed on Thompson and that imposed on his co-offender was justified. This required the Court to consider the application of the parity principle, which mandates that sentences for co-offenders should be broadly similar unless there are justifiable reasons for a disparity. The Court had to determine if any differences in the subjective circumstances of the offenders, such as their age and prospects of rehabilitation, or in the objective seriousness of their offending, adequately explained the sentencing difference. The ultimate question was whether Thompson could establish a justifiable sense of grievance arising from this disparity.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the disparity in sentences was justified. The reasoning applied by the Court acknowledged that while the parity principle is important, it does not require identical sentences for co-offenders. Differences in subjective factors, such as the appellant's prior criminal history and poorer prospects of rehabilitation compared to his co-offender, as well as differences in their respective roles in the offending, were considered relevant and sufficient to justify the disparity. The Court concluded that the sentencing judge had properly taken into account all relevant differences when imposing the sentence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.